I would love to help, but you need to provide the chart!
Answer:
A correlation is only a mathematical means of describing the relationship between variables. When it is a positive correlation, it means when the value of one increases, for example, the value of the other variable also increases or when one decreases, so does the other. A negative correlation would show that as one variable increases in value, the other decreases. These relationships are non-causal as you're not manipulating variables to control them to see what is causing this relationship. Sometimes, non-causal covariance (or variables that don't have an effect on each other vary cooincidentally in a pattern-like fashion, when there is actually another variable causing the relationship going on.
Explanation:
In the case of this example, it is doubtful that having money causes you to have a higher grade point average. So while we see an increase in grade point average with those who have high income it could be due to other factors, like people with more money have access to learning tools, tutors and other things that people with less money don't have access to. So it is access to tools, not money that is actually causing a difference. There are likely dozens if not hundreds of other potential confounded variables that could be causing this observation.
Answer:
The correc answer is : True
Explanation:
When talking about computer security, there are services and software products that can be combined to give security related to information stored, as well as for event management. This kind of system provides security alerts in real-time, besides the analysis of them. These warnings are generated by applications and network hardware.
Answer:
<em>I can see that there are no choices.</em>
fallacy of bandwagon
Explanation:
A "logical fallacy" refers to the error of reasoning or logical gap that makes an argument invalid.
The situation above commits the fallacy of the bandwagon because the argument is being supported only according to a significant number of population. This is a fallacy because it doesn't necessarily mean all of the retired persons are unhappy about the level of Social Security assistance due to the opinion of 30 persons who agreed that they were unhappy. It becomes a "standalone justification" of the validity of an argument. We cannot judge the happiness or unhappiness of all retired persons according only to a group of 30 persons <em>(even though they were chosen from different parts of the country). </em>
So, this explains the answer.
